Search Climate Insights Directory

The Clean Air Task Force argues that Germany requires a dedicated CO2 strategy and regulatory framework to enable the implementation of CCU and CCS technologies, which are deemed essential for mitigating industrial process emissions that cannot be otherwise reduced. The document calls for the development of national and cross-border CO2 transport infrastructure, the introduction of Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) to support industrial clusters, and the initiation of a societal dialogue on climate protection technologies.

The document examines the resurgence of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in Europe as a critical tool for decarbonizing heavy industries and achieving Paris Agreement targets. It analyzes EU-level policies like the TEN-E Regulation and the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), alongside financing tools such as the Innovation Fund and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The paper highlights a strategic shift toward 'carbon management hubs' to achieve economies of scale and reviews national progress in Norway, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, concluding that existing policy levers may be insufficient for the required scale-up.

The document analyzes three case studies from the Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance to demonstrate how linking financial instruments to policy tools—such as national land-use regulations, insurance subsidies, and subsidized rural credit—can stimulate demand, identify project pipelines, and attract private capital. It provides specific design considerations to mitigate risks like market distortion, political instability, and 'leakage' of deforestation.

Carbon Market Watch analyzed 18 "carbon neutral" fossil fuel claims, primarily involving liquefied natural gas (LNG), and found that every claim failed to meet basic criteria for environmental integrity and transparency. The report argues that fossil fuels cannot be carbon neutral because the firms involved are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways and rely on flawed "tonne-for-tonne" offsetting. Key failures include the omission of Scope 3 emissions in one-third of claims, a total lack of transparency regarding the price paid for carbon credits, and the use of impermanent nature-based sinks to offset long-term fossil carbon emissions. The report recommends that fossil fuel firms cease these claims, stop new exploration, and shift toward a "contribution" model for climate finance.

The document argues that to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, new coal infrastructure must stop immediately and most existing plants must be retired by 2030. It provides a framework for financial institutions to assess corporate coal exit plans, emphasizing that credible plans must include facility-by-facility closure dates, a prohibition on selling assets to new owners, and a ban on converting plants to other fossil fuels or biomass. The briefing also highlights the necessity of funded just transition plans and the cessation of anti-climate lobbying and legal challenges via investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

The document argues that to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, the global coal industry must be phased out rapidly, with 80% of the global fleet and all facilities in the OECD, Eastern Europe, and the Former Soviet Union closed by 2030. It provides financial institutions with a ten-point framework to assess corporate phase-out plans, emphasizing that plans must include facility-by-facility closure dates, prohibit the sale of assets to new owners, and forbid conversion to fossil gas, biomass, or fossil-based hydrogen. The briefing also warns against using carbon capture and storage (CCS) or Science-Based Targets (SBTi) as substitutes for concrete closure plans and insists on funded just transition roadmaps and the cessation of anti-climate lobbying and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims.

The briefing outlines six insights for investors to drive net-zero transitions in the oil and gas, agricultural commodities, steel, and cement sectors. It emphasizes that while divestment is a common strategy, coordinated engagement to prevent new investments in polluting assets, promote sector-wide transitions, and influence value chains is more likely to achieve real-economy emission reductions. The authors suggest that investors should push for concrete actions, such as carbon capture projects in cement or production decreases in oil and gas, rather than relying solely on general emission trajectories.

The report examines four high-emitting sectors—steel, cement, agriculture, and oil and gas—concluding that none have seriously initiated the disruptive changes required to align with the Paris Agreement. It emphasizes that while long-term transitions will take decades due to investment cycles and systemic complexity, immediate action is required to avoid locking in polluting assets. The authors argue that investors can drive impact through active engagement with value chains and by pressuring companies to commit to fundamental business model shifts rather than simple portfolio reallocation.

The report examines the historical and current trends of coal ash reuse, distinguishing between encapsulated uses (such as concrete and wallboard) and unencapsulated uses (such as mine reclamation and structural fill). While encapsulated reuse can reduce CO2 emissions, unencapsulated reuse is flagged as a high-risk practice that may serve as a loophole for unregulated disposal, potentially contaminating groundwater. The document advocates for the precautionary principle and legal classification of unencapsulated reuse as disposal to protect public health.

Ember argues that the assumption that biomass burning is carbon neutral is problematic and that the resulting reliance on BECCS for negative emissions in National Grid's FES scenarios is subject to high uncertainty. The organization advocates for BECCS to be treated as a 'technology of last resort' and requests that FES2022 include at least one net-zero scenario with very low or no BECCS deployment to better quantify trade-offs with nature-based solutions and behavior changes.

Reclaim Finance claims that TotalEnergies is using 'climate-KPI linked' debt to fund a strategy that remains heavily reliant on oil and gas, arguing that these sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) lack the ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the 1.5°C trajectory.

Carbon Market Watch criticises a proposal by fifteen Members of the European Parliament to incentivise CCS and CCU within the EU carbon market. The organisation distinguishes between carbon removals, which physically remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and CCS/CCU, which typically only capture emissions from industrial sources. It warns that promoting CCS/CCU could lead to greenwashing, stranded assets, and delayed emissions, particularly in the power sector. The document specifically highlights the risks of BECCS and waste-to-energy CCS, citing deforestation linked to the Drax power plant. It concludes that the EU carbon market must focus on reducing emissions at the source and that public funding should only support mature, transparently assessed carbon removal technologies.

The brief contends that fossil fuel companies have engaged in a long-term strategy of deception, shifting from explicit denial to framing climate change as a manageable 'risk' and shifting responsibility to individual consumers. It provides evidence that companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell promote themselves as clean energy leaders while maintaining massive investments in fossil fuels and funding third-party organizations to undermine climate science.

A coalition of organizations calls on the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee to implement a comprehensive clean energy tax framework. The proposal emphasizes the need for decade-long policy certainty and specific credits for emerging technologies—such as clean hydrogen, carbon capture, and sustainable aviation fuels—alongside the extension of credits for mature resources like wind, solar, and existing nuclear power to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The document advocates for the strategic use of "blue" hydrogen to accelerate decarbonization in sectors like heavy trucking, shipping, and steel production. It argues that relying solely on "green" hydrogen (electrolysis via renewables) would require an impractical increase in wind and solar capacity—potentially 40 times current U.S. levels—and excessive land use. While acknowledging that blue hydrogen's climate benefit depends on high carbon capture rates and low upstream methane leaks, the author asserts that these technical goals are feasible today. The document concludes that policymakers should implement tiered incentives tied to lifecycle greenhouse gas performance to ensure hydrogen production actually supports net-zero goals.

The Russian coal sector provides a low economic contribution to the national GDP but maintains high social and political significance, particularly in regions like Kuzbass. Despite this, the sector is heavily reliant on indirect state subsidies and faces a deteriorating infrastructure, with the average age of coal power plants reaching 53 years. The report highlights a disconnect between the Russian government's expectations of export growth and the reality of decarbonization trends in key markets such as the EU, China, and India. It argues that Russia lacks an official decarbonization scenario and that conservative views currently dominate policy, ignoring the risks of stranded assets and the impact of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The authors propose a 'just transition' framework consisting of social programs for workers, regional economic diversification, and the introduction of an internal carbon price.

The document examines the dominance of coal in the Kuzbass region, the environmental and health impacts of this industry, and the Russian government's current diversification strategies. It argues that while the government has initiated diversification plans, these remain focused on fossil fuels and matured sectors, neglecting renewable energy and innovative industries. The author suggests that substantive transition is unlikely until global coal demand drops sharply.

The Russian coal sector provides a negligible contribution to the national GDP but remains politically significant due to regional employment and historical stability concerns. While the Russian government continues to anticipate growth in coal exports, particularly to Asia, the report argues that this is unrealistic given the global low-carbon transition, the obsolescence of Russia's coal-fired power fleet, and the increasing competitiveness of renewable energy. The document highlights that the sector is heavily reliant on indirect government subsidies, such as reduced rail tariffs. It proposes a three-part just transition framework consisting of social re-employment programmes, regional economic diversification (especially in the Kuzbass region), and the implementation of a domestic carbon price to internalize environmental costs.

The briefing analyzes pathways from the Climate Change Committee (CCC), National Grid, and Energy Systems Catapult (ESC) to demonstrate that the UK power sector can be nearly fossil-free by 2035. It argues that phasing out unabated gas will reduce reliance on expensive imports, lower electricity bills, and stimulate a green industrial revolution. While the models differ on the roles of nuclear and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), they agree on the centrality of wind and solar power and the need for increased energy storage and hydrogen capacity.

The report analyzes 11 recent studies, concluding that a transition to 80% clean electricity by 2030 in the U.S. is feasible, affordable, and critical for meeting national climate goals. Key findings indicate that such a transition would be driven primarily by wind, solar, and battery storage, resulting in significant job growth, reduced premature deaths, and substantial avoided health and climate damages, with minimal impact on consumer electricity bills.